Search Results

Search found 3641 results on 146 pages for 'threads'.

Page 1/146 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 613 threads limit on debian

    - by Joel
    When running this program thread-limit.c on my dedicated debian server, the output says that my system can't create more than around 600 threads. I need to create more threads, and fix my system misconfiguration. Here are a few informations about my dedicated server: de801:/# uname -a Linux de801.ispfr.net 2.6.18-028stab085.5 #1 SMP Thu Apr 14 15:06:33 MSD 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux de801:/# java -version java version "1.6.0_26" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_26-b03) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.1-b02, mixed mode) de801:/# ldd $(which java) linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fffbc3fd000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00002af013225000) libjli.so => /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun-1.6.0.26/jre/bin/../lib/amd64/jli/libjli.so (0x00002af013441000) libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00002af01354b000) libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00002af013750000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002af013008000) de801:/# cat /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max 1589248 de801:/# ulimit -a core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited scheduling priority (-e) 0 file size (blocks, -f) unlimited pending signals (-i) 794624 max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 32 max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited open files (-n) 10240 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200 real-time priority (-r) 0 stack size (kbytes, -s) 128 cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) unlimited virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited file locks (-x) unlimited Here is the output of the C program de801:/test# ./thread-limit Creating threads ... Address of c = 1061520 KB Address of c = 1081300 KB Address of c = 1080904 KB Address of c = 1081168 KB Address of c = 1080508 KB Address of c = 1080640 KB Address of c = 1081432 KB Address of c = 1081036 KB Address of c = 1080772 KB 100 threads so far ... 200 threads so far ... 300 threads so far ... 400 threads so far ... 500 threads so far ... 600 threads so far ... Failed with return code 12 creating thread 637. Any ideas how to fix this please ?

    Read the article

  • Application threads vs Service threads

    - by zerayaqob
    What are the advantages/disadvantages in placing a lengthy network access code in a thread in an activity or a thread in a service? How would it affect the application? I am writing a streaming audio player and from what I've read so far putting the code in a service will still end up blocking the application so a new thread is needed, does anyone know if it makes more sense to put this piece of code in a service. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Technically why is processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads?

    - by Jonas
    Spawning processes seam to be much more efficient in Erlang than starting new threads using the OS (i.e. by using Java or C). Erlang spawns thousands and millions of processes in a short period of time. I know that they are different since Erlang do per process GC and processes in Erlang are implemented the same way on all platforms which isn't the case with OS threads. But I don't fully understand technically why Erlang processes are so much more efficient and has much smaller memory footprint per process. Both the OS and Erlang VM has to do scheduling, context switches and keep track of the values in the registers and so on... Simply why isn't OS threads implemented in the same way as processes in Erlang? Does it have to support something more? and why does it need a bigger memory footprint? Technically why is processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads? And why can't threads in the OS be implemented and managed in the same efficient way?

    Read the article

  • Weblogic Threads Usage

    - by Hila
    I have an application deployed on WebLogic 10.3, which exhibits a strange behavior. I am running a constant (not too high) load on my application (20 concurrent users, running a light activity). The response time is reasonable (well below 100ms after the application stabilizes) Memory consumption seems fine (My application creates a lot of short-living objects, but they are garbaged collected so the overall memory consumption stays under 500 mb). Threads stats seem healthy as well: And yet, after I leave my test running for a while, more and more execute threads ("[ACTIVE] ExecuteThread: '3' for queue: 'weblogic.kernel.Default (self-tuning)'") are created, until eventually the application crashes: This test hasn't been running for a long time (All the new threads that you don't see in the first screenshot were created while I was writing this question), and I've seen much more threads being created. Any idea why these threads are being created?

    Read the article

  • "No more threads can be created in the system" in Network and Sharing Center

    - by Zell Faze
    A while back I noticed on one of our laboratory computers (Windows 7, very little extra software installed) that the network connection icon in the system tray would claim that it had no network connection, even though it did. This issue would go away after the computer was rebooted, but would surface again the next time I looked at the computer (a few days later). Upon opening the Network and Sharing Center I am shown an actual error message, but not one that seems to give me a lot of information about what the problem is. In the place of the usual information about network adapters and whether you are connected to the Internet it simply says: "No more threads can be created in the system." The Event Viewer shows hundreds of events from different services also with the same message. "Volume Shadow Copy Service error: Unexpected error calling routine CoCreateInstance. hr = 0x800700a4, No more threads can be created in the system."; "The WinHTTP Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Service service failed to start due to the following error: A thread could not be created for the service."; "The IP Helper service terminated with the following error: No more threads can be created in the system." As far as I can tell, this message seems to mean that there is some sort of resource leak in Windows where something is creating a large number of threads and those threads are not being killed off? I've tried restarting WMI and several services related to networking, without avail. Can anyone provide more information on what "No more threads can be created in the system" might mean and what I might be able to do to fix the issue? Currently the only solution appears to be restarting.

    Read the article

  • Simple description of worker and I/O threads in .NET

    - by Konstantin
    It's very hard to find detailed but simple description of worker and I/O threads in .NET What's clear to me regarding this topic (but may not be technically precise): Worker threads are threads that should employ CPU for their work; I/O threads (also called "completion port threads") should employ device drivers for their work and essentially "do nothing", only monitor the completion of non-CPU operations. What is not clear: Although method ThreadPool.GetAvailableThreads returns number of available threads of both types, it seems there is no public API to schedule work for I/O thread. You can only manually create worker thread in .NET? It seems that single I/O thread can monitor multiple I/O operations. Is it true? If so, why ThreadPool has so many available I/O threads by default? In some texts I read that callback, triggered after I/O operation completion is performed by I/O thread. Is it true? Isn’t this a job for worker thread, considering that this callback is CPU operation? To be more specific – do ASP.NET asynchronous pages user I/O threads? What exactly is performance benefit in switching I/O work to separate thread instead of increasing maximum number of worker threads? Is it because single I/O thread does monitor multiple operations? Or Windows does more efficient context switching when using I/O threads?

    Read the article

  • Increasing FreeBSD threads

    - by sh-beta
    For network apps that create one thread per connection (like Pound), threadcount can become a bottleneck on the number of concurrent connections you can server. I'm running FreeBSD 8 x64: $ sysctl kern.maxproc kern.maxproc: 6164 $ sysctl kern.threads.max_threads_per_proc kern.threads.max_threads_per_proc: 1500 $ limits Resource limits (current): cputime infinity secs filesize infinity kB datasize 33554432 kB stacksize 524288 kB coredumpsize infinity kB memoryuse infinity kB memorylocked infinity kB maxprocesses 5547 openfiles 200000 sbsize infinity bytes vmemoryuse infinity kB pseudo-terminals infinity swapuse infinity kB I want to increase kern.threads.max_threads_per_proc to 4096. Assuming each thread starts with a stack size of 512k, what else do I need to change to ensure that I don't hose my machine?

    Read the article

  • Nested Threads?

    - by Olaseni
    What are the rules regarding spawning new threads within other running threads? I have a C# app that handles two basic threads in the background. I recently introduced some heavy duty IO stuff, and I was thinking of setting them off inside threads. Are threads nested within themselves cool?

    Read the article

  • Shutting down a windows service that has threads

    - by Dave
    I have a windows service written in .NET 3.5 (c#) with a System.Threading.Timer that spawns several Threads in each callback. These are just normal threads (no Thread Pool) and I've set the IsBackground = true on each thread since I'm only going to be running managed code. When a user stops the service, what happens to all the threads? Do they die gracefully? I don't have any code that manages the threads via calling join or abort. Is it correct to assume the IsBackground = true is enough to assume the threads will be disposed and stopped when a user stops the service? What exactly happens when someone stops a windows service via the Service Manager GUI? Does it kill the process after it fires the OnStop event? This would actually be acceptable for me because I've built a separate mechanism that allows a user know for sure there are no threads before they stop the service. This is done via 2 WCF methods exposed from a ServiceHost that runs inside the Windows Service. There's one method to stop spawning new threads and another method to query how many running threads there are left. I'm just curious what happens if they skip those steps and just stop the service... It seems the IsBackground helps achieve this:

    Read the article

  • Recursively adding threads to a Java thread pool

    - by Leith
    I am working on a tutorial for my Java concurrency course. The objective is to use thread pools to compute prime numbers in parallel. The design is based on the Sieve of Eratosthenes. It has an array of n bools, where n is the largest integer you are checking, and each element in the array represents one integer. True is prime, false is non prime, and the array is initially all true. A thread pool is used with a fixed number of threads (we are supposed to experiment with the number of threads in the pool and observe the performance). A thread is given a integer multiple to process. The thread then finds the first true element in the array that is not a multiple of thread's integer. The thread then creates a new thread on the thread pool which is given the found number. After a new thread is formed, the existing thread then continues to set all multiples of it's integer in the array to false. The main program thread starts the first thread with the integer '2', and then waits for all spawned threads to finish. It then spits out the prime numbers and the time taken to compute. The issue I have is that the more threads there are in the thread pool, the slower it takes with 1 thread being the fastest. It should be getting faster not slower! All the stuff on the internet about Java thread pools create n worker threads the main thread then wait for all threads to finish. The method I use is recursive as a worker can spawn more worker threads. I would like to know what is going wrong, and if Java thread pools can be used recursively.

    Read the article

  • Tell Tomcat to drop requests instead of dying "All threads (150) are currently busy"

    - by Nicolas Raoul
    My Tomcat 6.0.26 sometimes dies saying: SEVERE: All threads (150) are currently busy, waiting. Increase maxThreads (150) or check the servlet status ... then Tomcat shuts down, and users can't access the webapp until I restart Tomcat manually. Some of the threads indeed take a long time to execute, it is by-design, not a thread-gone-wild problem. I know I could increase maxThreads, but that is not a viable solution, because the server might receive requests even more requests. QUESTION: Instead of dying, can I tell Tomcat to just drop requests when maxThreads is reached and the AJP/1.3 backlog is full? Below is my server.xml in any case: <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <Server port="8005" shutdown="SHUTDOWN"> <Listener className="org.apache.catalina.core.AprLifecycleListener" SSLEngine="on" /> <Listener className="org.apache.catalina.core.JasperListener" /> <Listener className="org.apache.catalina.mbeans.ServerLifecycleListener" /> <Listener className="org.apache.catalina.mbeans.GlobalResourcesLifecycleListener" /> <GlobalNamingResources> <Resource name="UserDatabase" auth="Container" type="org.apache.catalina.UserDatabase" description="User database that can be updated and saved" factory="org.apache.catalina.users.MemoryUserDatabaseFactory" pathname="conf/tomcat-users.xml" /> </GlobalNamingResources> <Service name="Catalina"> <Executor name="tomcatThreadPool" namePrefix="catalina-exec-" minSpareThreads="100"/> <Connector port="8080" protocol="HTTP/1.1" connectionTimeout="20000" redirectPort="8443" /> <Connector port="8009" protocol="AJP/1.3" redirectPort="8443" enableLookups="false" useBodyEncodingForURI="true" backlog="150" maxThreads="150" executor="tomcatThreadPool" keepAliveTimeout="5000" connectionTimeout="300000" /> <Engine name="Catalina" defaultHost="localhost" jvmRoute="ecm1"> <Realm className="org.apache.catalina.realm.UserDatabaseRealm" resourceName="UserDatabase"/> <Host name="localhost" appBase="webapps" unpackWARs="true" autoDeploy="true" xmlValidation="false" xmlNamespaceAware="false"> </Host> </Engine> </Service> </Server>

    Read the article

  • 500 Worker Threads, what kind of thread pool?

    - by Submerged
    I am wondering if this is the best way to do this. I have about 500 threads that run indefinitely, but Thread.sleep for a minute when done one cycle of processing. ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(list.size()+1); for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) { es.execute(coreAppVector.elementAt(i)); //coreAppVector is a vector of extends thread objects } The code that is executing is really simple and basically just this class aThread extends Thread { public void run(){ while(true){ Thread.sleep(ONE_MINUTE); //Lots of computation every minute } } } I do need a separate threads for each running task, so changing the architecture isn't an option. I tried making my threadPool size equal to Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() which attempted to run all 500 threads, but only let 8 (4xhyperthreading) of them execute. The other threads wouldn't surrender and let other threads have their turn. I tried putting in a wait() and notify(), but still no luck. If anyone has a simple example or some tips, I would be grateful! Well, the design is arguably flawed. The threads implement Genetic-Programming or GP, a type of learning algorithm. Each thread analyzes advanced trends makes predictions. If the thread ever completes, the learning is lost. That said, I was hoping that sleep() would allow me to share some of the resources while one thread isn't "learning"

    Read the article

  • Why not Green Threads?

    - by redjamjar
    Whilst I know questions on this have been covered already (e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5713142/green-threads-vs-non-green-threads), I don't feel like I've got a satisfactory answer. The question is: why don't JVM's support green threads anymore? It says this on the code-style Java FAQ: A green thread refers to a mode of operation for the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in which all code is executed in a single operating system thread. And this over on java.sun.com: The downside is that using green threads means system threads on Linux are not taken advantage of and so the Java virtual machine is not scalable when additional CPUs are added. It seems to me that the JVM could have a pool of system processes equal to the number of cores, and then run green threads on top of that. This could offer some big advantages when you have a very number large of threads which block often (mostly because current JVM's cap the number of threads). Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Tuning B2B Server Engine Threads in SOA Suite 11g

    - by Shub Lahiri, A-Team
    Background B2B 11g has a number of parameters that can be tweaked to tune the engine for handling high volumes of messages. These parameters are also known as B2B server properties and managed via the EM console.  This note highlights one aspect of the tuning exercise and describes the different threads, that can be configured to tune the performance of a B2B server. Symptoms The most common indicator of a B2B engine in need of a tuning is reflected in the constant build-up of messages in an internal JMS queue within the B2B server. It is called B2B_EVENT_QUEUE and can be monitored via the Weblogic server console. Whenever such a behaviour is seen, it usually results in general degradation of performance. Remedy There could be many contributing factors behind a B2B server's degradation of performance. However, one of the first places to tune the server from the out-of-the-box, default configuration is to change the number of internal engine threads allocated within the B2B server. Usually the default configuration for the B2B server engine threads is not suitable for high-volume of messaging loads. So, it is necessary to increase the counts for 3 types of such threads, by specifying the appropriate B2B server properties via the EM console, namely, Inbound - b2b.inboundThreadCount Outbound - b2b.outboundThreadCount Default - b2b.defaultThreadCount The function of these threads are fairly self-explanatory. In other words, the inbound threads process the inbound messages that are coming into the B2B server from an external endpoint. Similarly, the outbound threads processes the messages that are sent out from the B2B server. The default threads are responsible for certain B2B server-specific special tasks. In case the inbound and outbound thread counts are not specified, the default thread count also dictates the total number of inbound and outbound threads. As found in any tuning exercise, the optimisation of these threads is usually reached via an iterative process. The best working combination of the thread counts are directly related to the system infrastructure, traffic load and several other environmental factors.

    Read the article

  • Delphi threads deadlock

    - by Lobuno
    Hello! I am having a problem sometimes with a deadlock when destroying some threads. I've tried to debug the problem but the deadlock never seems to exist when debugging in the IDE, perhaps because of the low speed of the events in the ide. The problem: The main thread creates several threads when the application starts. The threads are always alive and synchronizing with the main thread. No problems at all. The threads are destroyed when the applcation ends (mainform.onclose) like this: thread1.terminate; thread1.waitfor; thread1.free; and so on. but some times one of the threads (which logs some string to a memo, using synchronize) will lock the whole application when closing. I suspect that the thread is synchronizing when I call waitform and the harmaggeddon happens, but that's is just a guess because the deadlock never happens when debbuging (or I've never been able to reproduce it anyway). Any advice?

    Read the article

  • C# Working with Locking and Threads

    - by aherrick
    Work on this small test application to learn threading/locking. I have the following code, I would think that the line should only write to console once. However it doesn't seem to be working as expected. Any thoughts on why? What I'm trying to do is add this Lot object to a List, then if any other threads try and hit that list, it would block. Am i completely misusing lock here? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { int threadCount = 10; //spin up x number of test threads Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadCount]; Work w = new Work(); for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(w.DoWork)); } for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i].Start(); } // don't let the console close Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Work { List<Lot> lots = new List<Lot>(); private static readonly object thisLock = new object(); public void DoWork() { Lot lot = new Lot() { LotID = 1, LotNumber = "100" }; LockLot(lot); } private void LockLot(Lot lot) { // i would think that "Lot has been added" should only print once? lock (thisLock) { if(!lots.Contains(lot)) { lots.Add(lot); Console.WriteLine("Lot has been added"); } } } }

    Read the article

  • .NET Working with Locking and Threads

    - by aherrick
    Work on this small test application to learn threading/locking. I have the following code, I would think that the line should only write to console once. However it doesn't seem to be working as expected. Any thoughts on why? What I'm trying to do is add this Lot object to a List, then if any other threads try and hit that list, it would block. Am i completely misusing lock here? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { int threadCount = 10; //spin up x number of test threads Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadCount]; Work w = new Work(); for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(w.DoWork)); } for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { threads[i].Start(); } // don't let the console close Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Work { List<Lot> lots = new List<Lot>(); private static readonly object thisLock = new object(); public void DoWork() { Lot lot = new Lot() { LotID = 1, LotNumber = "100" }; LockLot(lot); } private void LockLot(Lot lot) { // i would think that "Lot has been added" should only print once? lock (thisLock) { if(!lots.Contains(lot)) { lots.Add(lot); Console.WriteLine("Lot has been added"); } } } }

    Read the article

  • Sharing an object between threads

    - by Dave18
    How would you set the object data that is shared between threads and needs to be updated once after the complete cycle of (say) two threads in busy loop? CRITICAL_SECTION critical_section_; int value; //needs to be updated once after the cycle of any number of threads running in busy loop void ThreadsFunction(int i) { while (true) { EnterCriticalSection(&critical_section_); /* Lines of Code */ LeaveCriticalSection(&critical_section_); } }

    Read the article

  • Passing data structures to different threads

    - by Robb
    I have an application that will be spawning multiple threads. However, I feel there might be an issue with threads accessing data that they shouldn't be. I'm relatively new to threading so bare with me. Here is the structure of the threaded application (sorry for the crudeness): MainThread / \ / \ / \ Thread A Thread B / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Thread A_1 Thread A_2 Thread B_1 Thread B_2 Under each lettered thread (which could be many), there will only be two threads and they are fired of sequentially. The issue i'm having is I'm not entirely sure how to pass in a datastructure into these threads. So, the datastructure is created in MainThread, will be modified in the lettered thread (Thread A, etc) specific to that thread and then a member variable from that datastructure is sent to Letter_Numbered threads. Currently, the lettered thread class has a member variable and when the class is constructed, the datastructure from mainthread is passed in by reference, invoking the copy constructor so the lettered thread has it's own copy to play with. The lettered_numbered thread simply takes in a string variable from the data structure within the lettered thread. My question is, is this accceptable? Is there a much better way to ensure each lettered thread gets its own data structure to play with? Sorry for the somewhat poor explanation, please leave comments and i'll try to clarify.

    Read the article

  • Multiple threads or process with threads

    - by sergiobuj
    Hi, this is for an assignment so I'm not looking for code. I have to simulate a game where each player has turns and needs to 'pay attention' to what's going on. So far, i know I'll need two threads for each player, one that will sleep until the player's turn and the other paying attention. My question is: Should I work each player as a 'fork' and the threads on the fork, or just create some threads for the player and associate them somehow? It's the first time I've worked with concurrency, semaphores and threads so I'm not sure about the good practices and programming style. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Tomcat maximum threads

    - by Clinton Bosch
    I understand that setting the maximum number of connections available in a connection pool should be the same as your maxThreads configured for your Tomcat server (which correlates to the number of requests that can be handled) For tomcat the default is 200, I assume there is a maximum that you can safely configure for your Tomcat server before things start getting out of control, which I assume is also governed by the resources of the machine it is running on. I am trying to get an understanding of the size of maxThreads that people are using with success, is 1000 too big?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >